Cover not available
Part of
The Linguistics of Olfaction: Typological and Diachronic Approaches to Synchronic Diversity
Edited by Łukasz Jędrzejowski and Przemysław Staniewski
[Typological Studies in Language 131] 2021
► pp. 403–448

To what extent can source-based olfactory verbs be classified as copulas?

The case of German and Polish

 | University of Wrocław
 | University of Wrocław
In recent decades, there has been growing interest in the semantics and syntax of perception verbs in various languages. This has led to establishing a widely accepted classification in activity, experiencer- and source-based verbs – also labelled copulative. This chapter deals with the latter category in the olfactory domain in German and Polish. It provides a general theoretical discussion of the copulas, the perception verbs and their interfaces. Further, it focuses on the main four construction types in which the source-based olfactory verbs can occur in order to determine, based on their contextual embedding, if they qualify as copulas. Ultimately, the influence of regarding the source-based verbs as (non-)copulas for the description of the olfactory perception is pointed out.
Keywords: semantics-syntax interfaces, copula verbs, perception verbs, German, Polish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Copula verbs
  • 3.Perception verbs
  • 4.Perception verbs – Copulas, semi-copulas or pseudo-copulas?
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Subject construction
      • 5.1.1 Constructions of the type subject + source-based smell verb + adjective/adverb
      • 5.1.2 Construction of the type subject + source-based smell verb
      • 5.1.3 Construction of the type subject + source-based smell verb + prepositional phrase/instrumental noun phrase
    • 5.2Impersonal construction
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.131.14sta
References (96)
References
Badyda, Ewa. 2013. “Upadły anioł zmysłów”? Metaforyka zapachu i percepcji węchowej we współczesnej polszczyźnie. (Fallen Angel of the Senses? Imagery of Smell and Olfactory Perception in Contemporary Polish). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and Θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław. 2013. Metonymy in Language, Mind and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bogusławski, Andrzej. 2002. To jest / ‘das istʼ – unteilbare Spracheinheiten? Doch! Die Welt der Slaven 47: 131–154, 251–274.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna & Szymanek, Bogdan. 2007. Polish nominativeless constructions with dative Experiencers: Form, meaning and structure. Studies in Polish Linguistics 4: 61–97.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2013. Copular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1949. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bugajski, Marian. 2004. Jak pachnie rezeda. Lingwistyczne studium zapachów (How Mignonette Smells. Linguistic Study of Smells). Wrocław: Atut.Google Scholar
Bussmann, Hadumod. 2006. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, translated and edited by Gregory Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, David. 1972. A note on the abstract readings of verbs of perception. Cognition 2(3): 269–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118(3): 261–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Semantics and the Lexicon [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 49], James Pustejovsky (ed.), 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 47]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Distel, Hans, Ayabe-Kanamura, Saho, Martínez-Gómez, Margarita, Schicker, Ina, Kobayakawa, Tatsu, Saito, Sachiko & Hudson, Robyn. 1999. Perception of everyday odors – Correlation of intensity, familiarity and strength of hedonic judgement. Chemical Senses 24(2): 191–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2015. Exploring the grammar of perception. A case study using data from Russian. Functions of Language 22(1): 44–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolińska, Justyna. 2011. Überlegungen zum Prädikativ. Studia Linguistica 30 [Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis No 3377]: 57–80.Google Scholar
Doty, Richard L. & Laing, David G. 2003. Psychophysical measurement of human olfactory function, including odorant mixture assessment. In Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation, Richard L. Doty (ed.), 203–228. New York NY: Marcel Dekker. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubisz, Stanisław (ed.). 2006. Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego [Universal Dictionary of Polish], 4 Vols. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Duden 4. Die Grammatik. 2009. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Google Scholar
Duden. Das große Wörterbuch. 8 Vols. 1993. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 2016. Smell in Polish: Lexical semantics and cultural values. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24(2): 274–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz. 4. aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich, Rytel-Kuc, Danuta, Cirko, Lesław, Dębski, Antoni, Gaca, Alicja, Jurasz, Alina, Kątny, Andrzej, Mecner, Paweł, Prokop, Izabela, Sadziński, Roman, Schatte, Christoph, Schatte, Czesława, Tomiczek, Eugeniusz & Weiss, Daniel. 1999. Deutsch-polnische kontrastive Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1978. Über „Kopula”-verben und „verdeckte” (kopulalose) Ist-Prädikationen, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Valenz und ihrer Geschichte. In Deutsche Sprache: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Friedrich Maurer zum 80. Geburtstag, Hugo Moser, Heinz Rupp & Hugo Steger (eds), 75–92. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3): 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila & Rothstein, Björn. 2007. Einleitung: Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. In Kopulaverben und Kopulasätze. Intersprachliche und intrasprachliche Aspekte [Linguistische Arbeiten 512], Ljudmila Geist & Björn Rothstein (eds), 1–17. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila & Błaszczak, Joanna. 2000. Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto im Polnischen und Russischen. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16: 115–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2006. Die Kopula und ihre Komplemente. Zur Kompositionalität in Kopulasätzen [Linguistische Arbeiten 502]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 1998. The attributary structure, evidential meaning, and the semantics of English SOUND-class verbs. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grochowski, Maciej, Karolak, Stanisław & Topolińska, Zuzanna. 1984. Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego . Składnia (Grammar of Contemporary Polish. Syntax). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Look and see. Language 43(4): 937–947. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 2011. Wykłady z polskiej składni (Lectures on Polish Syntax). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Grzesiak, Romuald. 1983. Semantyka i składnia czasowników percepcji zmysłowej. (Syntax and Semantics of Perception Verbs) (Prace Instytutu Języka Polskiego 50). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Buscha, Joachim. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony [Functional Grammar Series 15]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke & Weydt, Harald. 2013. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. 4. vollständig überarbeitete Auflage. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Gerd. 2001. On the perspectivisation of noun phrases in copula sentences, mainly in Polish: (Y) to (jest) (X) and similar phenomena. In Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages: Papers in Honour of Andrzej Bogusławski on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday [Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 9], Viktor Chrakovskij & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 161–213. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Holz, Peter. 2005. Die Sprache des Parfums. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Grammatik, Metaphorik und Poetizität des Parfumwerbetextes [Schriftenreihe Philologia: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse 70]. Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar
Horton, Bruce. 1996. What are copula verbs? In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistics Research 6], Eugene H. Casad (ed.), 319–346. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundsnurscher, Franz. 1976. Die Perzeptionsverben des Deutschen. In Akten des V. Germanisten-Kongresses, Cambridge 1975, Heft 2 [Jahrbuch für internationale Germanistik. Reihe A. Kongreßberichte. Bd. 2], Leonhard Forster & Hans-Gert Roloff (eds), 66–73. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 1977. Zur Rolle der Wortarten im System der Perzeptionswörter. In Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloquim vom 9.-10. Juli 1976. Anläßlich des 70 Geburtstags von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1976 [Schriftenreihe Linguistik 1], Herbert E. Brekkle & Dieter Kastovsky (eds), 83–97. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 1999. Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: A Cross-Linguistic Study. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
. 2013. The power of the senses and the role of culture in metaphor and language. In Sensuous Cognition. Explorations into Human Sentience: Imagination, (E)motion and Perception [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 22], Rosario Caballero & Javier E. Dıáz Vera (eds), 109–133. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics. Scope, motivation, and lexicalization. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19], Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid (eds), 43–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics. The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental [Cognitive Linguistics Research 4]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junghanns, Uwe. 1997. On the so-called éto-cleft construction. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Indiana Meeting 1996, Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks (eds), 166–190. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2010. A note on an asymmetry in the hedonic implicatures of olfactory and gustatory terms. In Between the Regular and the Particular in Speech and Language, Susanne Fuchs, Philip Hoole, Christine Mooshammer & Marzena Żygis (eds), 235–245. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kryk, Barbara. 1979. How factive are SEE, HEAR and FEEL and their Polish counterparts. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 147–164.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald. 1999. Einführung. Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen als Syntax/Semantik-Schnittstelle. In Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen als Syntax/Semantik-Schnittstelle [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 14], Ewald Lang & Ljudmila Geist (eds), I-VII. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Majid, Asifa. 2014. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language 29(4): 407–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linde-Usiekniewicz, Jadwiga. 2007. Small clauses reconsidered revisited: Not so small and not all alike, and far fewer. Lingua Posnaniensis 49: 83–91.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen [Studia grammatica 56]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses. Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Copular clauses. In Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 33.2], Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 1805–1829. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mieszek, Aleksandra. 1979. Focus constructions – Cleft sentences in English and their counterparts in Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 113–126.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 80]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagórko, Alicja. 2010. Podręczna gramatyka języka polskiego (Concise Grammar of Polish). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego (NKJP) (Polish National Corpus) <[URL]> (2 November 2018).
Partee, Barbara. 1998. Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998 [Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7], Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats & Cynthia M. Vakareliyeska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
. 2010. Specificational copular sentences in Russian and English. Russian in Contrast. Oslo Studies in Language 2(1): 25–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 70]. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1972. Szkic pola semantycznego zapachów w polszczyźnie (An outline of the semantic field of smells in Polish). Język Polski 52(5): 330–339.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2010. Prädikative Genitive – Ein vernachlässigtes Kapitel der Grammatikschreibung. Deutsche Sprache 38: 193–209.Google Scholar
von Polenz, Peter. 2008. Deutsche Satzsemantik. Grundbegriffe des Zwischen-den-Zeilen-Lesens 3. Auflage [de Gruyter Studienbuch]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas. Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1989. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Tova R. 1987. Copular Nominal and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three kinds of physical perception verbs. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16–18, 8(1): 206–222.Google Scholar
. 1972. Another look at flip perception verbs. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14, 7(1): 302–315.Google Scholar
. 1974. Physical Perception Verbs in English: A Study in Lexical Relatedness. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1986. Equation vs. ascription: The nominative/instrumental opposition in West Slavic. In Case in Slavic, Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levin (eds), 312–322. Columbus OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
1993. Polish. In The Slavonic Languages, Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 686–759. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Small clauses and copula constructions. In Small Clauses [Syntax and Semantics 28], Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 27–48. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Predicates and Their Subjects [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 74]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Kendrick, Kobin H., Norcliffe, Elisabeth, Brown, Penelope, Defina, Rebecca, Dingemanse, Mark, Dirksmeyer, Tyko, Enfield, Nicholas J., Floyd, Simeon, Hammond, Jeremy, Rossi, Giovanni, Tufvesson, Sylvia, van Putten, Saskia & Majid, Asifa. 2015. Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1): 31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staniewski, Przemysław. 2014. Ausgewählte Wahrnehmungsverben im Deutschen, Englischen und Polnischen. Kognitive und geschichtliche Aspekte. Studia Linguistica 33 [Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis No 3629]: 135–157.Google Scholar
. 2016. Das Unantastbare beschreiben. Gerüche und ihre Versprachlichung im Deutschen und Polnischen [Warschauer Studien zur Germanistik und zur Angewandten Linguistik 25]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Geschmack und smak – sprachliche Aspekte der gustatorischen Wahrnehmung im Deutschen und Polnischen. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachlichenvermittlung, Sonderheft 25: 223–247.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Figuratywność w opisie doznań smakowych w językach polskim i niemieckim (Figurativity in the description of gustatory impressions in Polish and German). Talk held at the annual Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference Cognitive Linguistics in the Year 2017 , University of Rzeszów, 21–23 September 2017.
Süskind, Patrick. 1994. Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders. Zürich: Diogenes Verlag.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, Kazumi. 1997. On the semantics and developement of copulative perception verbs in English: A cognitive perspective. English Linguistics 14: 270–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thuerauf, Norbert, Gossler, Andrea, Lunkenheimer, Jens, Lunkenheimer, Birgit, Maihöfner, Christian, Bleich, Stephan, Kornhuber, Johannes, Markowic, Katrin & Reulbach, Udo. 2008. Olfactory lateralization: Odor intensity but not the hedonic estimation is lateralized. Neuroscience Letters 438(2): 228–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1980. Tre semantiska fait i svenskan och nagra andra språk (Three Semantic Fields in Swedish and Some Other Languages) [SSM Report 7]. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
. 1983. En typologisk undersökning av perceptionsverben som ett semantiskt fait (A Typological Investigation of the Verbs of Perception as a Semantic Field) [SSM Report 8]. Stockholm: Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1): 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Verbs of perception. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1294–1309. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. Swedish impersonal constructions from a crosslinguistic perspective. An exploratory corpus-based study. Orientalia Suceana 59: 122–158.Google Scholar
. 2015. Sensation, perception and cognition. Swedish in a typological-contrastive perspective. Functions of Language 22(1): 96–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard. 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German [German Linguistic and Cultural Studies 26]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Tóth, Máté
2024. A case for metonymic synesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 70 ff. DOI logo
Fishman, Alon
2023. Hebrew copulative perception verbs. Linguistics 61:4 ► pp. 997 ff. DOI logo
Martina, Giulia
2023. How we talk about smells. Mind & Language 38:4 ► pp. 1041 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.